Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0xB31B1B | Hacker News Reader

Employees in the bay and NYC have more opportunities and thus more negotiating leverage. It doesn’t mean they’re better at the work. Hiring in competitive locales does mean more brain space dedicated to “how do I retain this employee” and less brain space dedicated to “how can I make my customers happy and grow my business” which is a losing trade. The winning play is pay top of market rates to labor in low cost locales, and if the people you hire don’t work out then fire them quickly because you’re paying top if market and there is a lot of talent liquidity in that band. It’s the Netflix model, but global. Not really a new playbook.

View on HN

It’s a very effective playbook, but it’s taking the easy path. More interesting and challenging is building a high perf company that has a better relationship with it’s labor. A cutthroat model will always work, but I think humans are intelligent enough to build high performing groups that succeed while taking care of others. Even the mafia took care of family, in their own perverse way (If you off Tony for talking to the cops, you still take care of his wife and kids).

This is exactly wrong. The people you want to take care of are the top 25% of your team. When you let someone go, it’s often because someone in the top 25% is complaining that they do not trust the low performer and the low performer increases the workload of the high performer. When you have a team of high performers, new high performing candidates recognize that and see that as a huge plus for recruitment. No great candidate wants to join a team with people they see as less good than they are.

Never suggested that you can’t lay people off! Often times it’s not a good fit and it’s best for both to part ways. The goal is doing this with respect and treating them well upon exit, and more generally to my original point, creating a workplace that improves the human condition.

You might laugh, but for some being a builder of a place that treats people well while also being financially successful is important. In any event, it’s a interesting challenge that it seems few care to undertake.

For some reason coming back to this thread, its really wild how sociopathic c-suite types have to be.

Yea, that is the role. Don’t let anyone sugarcoat it for you. The point is to return value to shareholders. It’s difficult/impossible to do that while acting maliciously or without having gained trust so no one is trying to hurt people. The c suite in particular is paid to act on behalf of the company and it’s shareholders which leads to outcomes some might consider to be impolite.

It really shouldn't, but it surprises me every time I interact with these types of people. They behave and speak like their worldview is absolute and they justify their mistreatment of people as a necessary component of running a business. The dire warnings to the rest of us about job security and the ground shifting out from under us are just there to serve their power fantasy, but it provides good insight into the mindset of this class of individual. Good to have a template of what to avoid.

Like I said in a sibling post, the best we can do is: first, don't give our talent or time to these people. Second, start our own companies built on treating human beings with respect.

"Fire them quickly" isn't always easy in some jurisdictions, though, at least without some very careful planning -- and sometimes not even then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com